Comments

Chienworks wrote on 9/7/2010, 8:10 AM
Shoot 16:9 and crop it to fit, then upscale it.

Shoot three cameras side by side and stitch the result together.

Get a Red and crop it to fit.

Animate it.

Work with high megapixel stills and make a slideshow.

I'm sure there's lots of other ways.
ritsmer wrote on 9/7/2010, 8:31 AM
Some cameras can do "panorama sweep" - i.e. the small SONY TX7 can make 2 different size panoramas: Standard is 4912 X 1080 pixels. Wide is 7152 X 1080 (horizontal). (Vertical is 4912×1920)

It's "only" stills, however, but quite impressive. Did some last year in the very large Forbidden City palace, Beijing.
But only used them for panning in a "normal" 16:9 full HD video.
Jay Gladwell wrote on 9/7/2010, 8:37 AM

With the current crop of readily available cameras, that would equate to 1920 x 541. But why would anyone want such a extreme ratio? What would it accomplish?


Ken Brits wrote on 9/7/2010, 10:28 AM
Hi
Thanks for the response. The client has had a screen made to those dimensions and has commisioned a few different companies to do various animations and videos to be screened later this month.
No matter which way I try to set it up in Vegas, the results look bad. I have to produce a video using available stock footage which is 1920 x 1080 so any advice would help.

Thanks again
Jeff9329 wrote on 9/7/2010, 10:39 AM
Sounds like one of the 21:9 TVs available

[link}http://www.cinema.philips.com/gb_en/[/link]
Jay Gladwell wrote on 9/7/2010, 10:42 AM

If the footage already exists, you're gonna have a hard time cropping to make it look like anything.

You're only alternative is to "pan and scan," and even then...


Jay Gladwell wrote on 9/7/2010, 10:53 AM

21:9 is rougly the equivalent of 2.35:1 (2.33 actually), or CinemaScope. Why not just call it that?

Ken Brits wrote on 9/7/2010, 11:09 AM
Hi

Thanks.

I set up a project in Vegas with the given dimensions (2640 x 743) and it is a lot wider and thinner. 21 x 9 is 2.33:1 ratio. (I think)
Jay Gladwell wrote on 9/7/2010, 11:53 AM

Try basing the images on the ratio, not the pixel size. That should aid in maintaining the image quality. For example, 1920 x 541 image will hold up better when projected to the 3.55:1.


JJKizak wrote on 9/7/2010, 11:59 AM
16 x 9 should have been 2.35 x 1, true widescreen.
JJK
baysidebas wrote on 9/7/2010, 1:24 PM
There was a lot of "what were they thinking of...." keerfuffle when the standard was proposed and adopted. Particularly from the cine contingent.
farss wrote on 9/7/2010, 1:50 PM
First off the dimensions are technically wrong. All pixel dimensions should be even numbers.

No problem getting suitable footage. Good stock libraries can supply 35mm duplicate negative which you can have scanned at 4K. Bring that into Vegas and crop to suit.

If you want to shoot your own ftootage Red shoots 4K which would be the cheapest. There's also Vistavision cameras available to shoot 35mm. You're going to have to crop the image so you need the right safe area markers in the viewfinder. Alternatively two decent FullHD video cameras on a rig fitted with cine primes would get you there. They'd need to be genlocked.

Bob.